Santorum Is Extreme On More Than One Dimension

Santorum has attracted a terrible reputation among the overclass. He is defined by his crude, bigoted social conservatism, which colors the broader perception of him as an extremist. This in turn leeches out into a sense, often reflected in news coverage, which likewise reflects the social biases of the overclass, that Santorum is a fringe candidate who would repel swing voters.

In fact, there are, very roughly speaking, two kinds of swing voters. One kind is economically conservative, socially liberal swing voters. This is the kind of voter you usually read about, because it’s the kind most familiar to political reporters – affluent and college educated. But there’s a second kind of voter at least as numerous – economically populist and socially conservative. Think of disaffected blue-collar workers, downscale white men who love guns, hate welfare, oppose free trade, and want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Romney appeals to the former, but Santorum more to the latter.

Of course, he hasn’t just attracted a terrible reputation among the overclass – he lost his last reelection bid by 18 points. But I think Chait is missing something when he describes Santorum as representing “crude, bigoted social conservatism.”

Santorum’s social conservatism isn’t crude and bigoted. It’s ideological. Now, he may (or may not) have come to his extreme positions on social issues via personal disgust, but what distinguishes him is not that disgust but his extreme ideological fervor. And this characteristic is evident in areas beyond his social conservative views – most notably, in foreign policy.

There is indeed a bloc of swing voters that fits Chait’s description – some of them were probably Huckabee voters, some were, once upon a time, Buchanan voters, or Perot voters. A right-wing populist would, in theory, make an effective foil for Barack Obama, who, because of his personal characteristics and style and because of his policies (which appear to have been very solicitous of established interests like the banks and insurers, while not having been very successful at bringing down the sky-high unemployment rate) is going to have a tough time with downscale whites.

But Santorum is only secondarily a populist. He’s primarily a crusader. I almost mean that literally – he defended the justice of the actual crusades in a speech last year. Santorum is a conviction candidate, and if he’s the nominee he’s going to run on what he believes. And what he believes is that we are being way too easy on not just Iran, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea.

Is this what these swing voters want to hear? That the ultimate proof that Obama is “un-American” is that he hasn’t launched a world-wide military offensive against the enemies of freedom?

I’m skeptical. And I’m skeptical that the typical swing voter of the type Chait is referring to is actually motivated by Santorum’s ideological social conservatism either. That kind of voter probably is alienated by hostility or even indifference to their social conservatism – they’d rather see a candidate be anti-abortion, anti-same-sex-marriage, maybe even anti-women-in-combat, etc. than aggressively pro- any of those things. But it’s a question of emphasis. The people who are primarily motivated by these issues are probably already ideological voters, and will vote Republican – and show up to vote Republican – regardless. Downscale swing voters I’d expect to be motivated by other matters, even if they were more comfortable with a socially-conservative candidate. A Santorum general election campaign that emphasized the centrality of social issues would seem to a swing voter not so much offensive as off-base.

At least I hope so. I find the highly ideological character of Santorum’s mind to be quite scary, much scarier than the specifics of his views. I like to think that this character will be rejected by the general electorate as, well, kind of un-American. But we’ll see. The people elected a guy named Barack Hussein Obama last time. Anything can happen.

Hide 21 comments

21 Responses to Santorum Is Extreme On More Than One Dimension

As a pro-life Catholic, I’m in agreement (here in PA its hard to justify associating with this GOPcohort when I’m prayerfully protesting the killing of innocents at abortion clinics over here when all the Santorum-types seem to want to talk about is killing innocent Mohammedans by waging warfare over there)

“And I’m skeptical that the typical swing voter of the type Chait is referring to is actually motivated by Santorum’s ideological social conservatism either. That kind of voter probably is alienated by hostility or even indifference to their social conservatism – they’d rather see a candidate be anti-abortion, anti-same-sex-marriage, maybe even anti-women-in-combat, etc. than aggressively pro- any of those things. But it’s a question of emphasis. The people who are primarily motivated by these issues are probably already ideological voters, and will vote Republican – and show up to vote Republican – regardless. Downscale swing voters I’d expect to be motivated by other matters, even if they were more comfortable with a socially-conservative candidate.”

One indication of this is that Perot, who was popular with many such voters, was *not* a social conservative (he was pro-choice on abortion, though he didn’t put much emphais on it), Real hard-core social conservatives did not vote for Perot–one indication of this is that he did poorly in the South. But in the rest of the country, he got plenty of downscale white voters (though some upscale ones too).

The people who you think will be turned off by Santorum’s crusade against Bolivia, Venezuela, and other dime a dozen countries are the same ones who are buying the meme that Iran is an existential threat to the world, and if Newt is to be believed, the entire Solar System.

As long as Santorum hates the Libruls, Homos, and Evilutionists the attitude of right-leaning voters will be “whatever-“

I agree with this and this makes me think that someone needs to remind the Republican party that they have a responsibility to the nation. Right now their slate of candidates consists of a guy with a narcissistic personality disorder, a sociopathic-level liar, a genuine religious fanatic, and a gold bug. And these terms are not in any way polemic.

I am all for democracy, but we are just recovering from 8 years of incompetent presiding, and now we are confronted with a group (with MAYBE the exception of ron paul) who is very likely to be way worse. If the Bush years were disastrous, these next 4 years threaten to be super-disastrous. Can you imagine Rick Santorum as our president? Two months ago everyone was snickering, with good reason.

Can someone at the RNC please step in here. They are always talking about patriotism and yet they allow this frankenstine monster born of their southern strategy to shamble forward towards the gears and levers. I think they should revoke membership in the party for all four and field no candidate. The four crazies can run as independents and siphon votes from each other and we can get on with our lives. Meanwhile the RP can take some time off for some real serious soul searching.

“I find the highly ideological character of Santorum’s mind to be quite scary, much scarier than the specifics of his views. I like to think that this character will be rejected by the general electorate as, well, kind of un-American. ”

As you say, Santorum’s ideological cast of mind is scary, but I do think it will be rejected by Americans as un-American. His sudden recrudescence is as nexplicable to me as Gingrich’s, and a diversion from the real divide (and real choice) in the GOP primaries, whch is between the establishment / neocon wing and the Ron Paul / Tea Party insurgency.

Someone who understands that good process in decision making leads to good outcome and rigorously implements good decision making process. Someone not tied to political or religious ideology to the extent where it blinds them to reality or restricts them from doing what is best for the country. Someone who is not psychologically weird. Someone who sees themselves as president for everyone, including people of opposite party, and acts that way. Someone who feels an obligation to tell the truth. Someone who is a good politician and who uses their skills for the good of the country (rather than their party). Someone smart.

“His sudden recrudescence is as nexplicable to me as Gingrich’s, and a diversion from the real divide (and real choice) in the GOP primaries, whch is between the establishment / neocon wing and the Ron Paul / Tea Party insurgency.”

This is based on the false assumption made by so many libertarians–always pathetically anxious to discover that a “libertarian moment” has come–that the Tea Party was a libertarian movement. It was simply conventional conservatism on steroids. (By conventional conservatism, I mean a combination of relatively free market economics–at least compared to what Democrats or the Rockefeller Repubicans of old supported–social conservatism, and a hawkish foriegn policy. And especially it means liberal-bashing, and especially bashing liberals as soft on terrorists and other enemies of America. Whether you like it or not, whether you call it neoconservatism or not, that is what conservatism means to most Americans who call themselves “very conservative”–the group most likely to tell pollsters they support Santorum *and* the Trea Party.) That more of its followers would support Santorum than Paul was perfectly predictable. Their only complaint about the GOP Establishment is not with the positions Establishment Republicans now take, but with how sincere the Establishment’s rightward move in recent years is.

I don’t know a whole lot about ROmeny. I don’t think anyone can because he has so totally reinvented himself as a right winger. But for sure he is psychologically weird (it’s amazing how many politician are). And he definitely feels no obligation to tell the truth.

On the plus side I’d say that he is probably smart and aware of the importance of good decision making process. As far as being tied to ideology, who knows?

His main problem is the extreme levels of dishonesty. There is no realistic scenario where a normal human being can lie like that so often in front of huge crowds while having everything recorded. There’s got to be something mentally wrong with him, some sort of sociopathology. I think everyone senses it.

That’s a total fabrication of Romney flip flopping on everything. If you believe harding your positions over time and becoming more conservative as you age is unrealistic then you might as well revoke Ronald Reagan’s conservative creds.

As an independent who voted for Perot, I could not possibly support Santorum. It has increasingly concerned me that Christian theologies have become so intertwined with what is generally viewed as Conservative political philosophy.

To take the position that birth control should be outlawed and non-marital sexual intercourse be designated a crime (misdemeanor or felony?) is not Conservative thinking. This is a religious ideology at odds with Conservative beliefs and attitudes and certainly at odds with the Constitution. How he managed to even get into the race boggles the mind.

Republicans won’t find themselves in the White House in 2013 if we allow Santorum any where near the Presidential ticket. Didn’t we learn anything about putting these kinds of people on a ticket by saddling the McCain campaign with Sarah Palin? Do we want to win this election or not?

Aaah i get it, this is one of those medias that claim to be conservative and all the while trash anything and everthing that comes close to what actual real conservatism is. i don’t know if it’s stupidity, naivity, an attempt to turn conservatives away from conservatism or both. conservatism is conservatism, christianity is christianity, just because you don’t like it don’t try to change it to suit you.

cw.. I certainly sense it.I get the impression that this race is a sort of game to him, like maybe Monopoly. Romney laughs off any attacks on National Television and does not answer any questions pertaining to those attacks. His patent response is for people to check his record. Well, I did. I was horrified. The man has never stood for anything. And the record is as bad as it gets (as far as conservatism goes).

I guess he’s just a child of his time (and place). A free spirit surfing the zietgiest from pro-choice big gov Mass. liberal to tea party crasher.

Or… maybe when he was in Mass. he caught conservatosis and it’s been progressing over the years until now he’s severely conservative. That’s another reason not to vote for him. If he wins and we fail to find a cure for conservatism, he will probably die in office and then Marco Rubio will be president.